Eighth+Welsh+7

=8th Amendment=

What does the 8th amendment actually do?

 * The 8th Amendment basically states that extra bail and fines are not needed and that cruel and unusual punishments cannot be given. What exactly is cruel and unusual? This is the recent debate about the 8th Amendment.**


 * The 8th Amendment was submitted by Congress on September 25, 1789, along with the other 9 amendments. It was officially ratified on December 15, 1791 and all 10 amendments officially became the Bill of Rights and part of the Constitution. But where did the framers of the Constitution get the idea for this amendment? Americans felt that the 8th Amendment should be a basic right in the Bill of Rights. It was originally in England, part of their Bill of Rights.**
 * England had a problem with huge fines and bail and the king and officials made loads of money off the bail and fines of criminals. But their physical punishments were even worse. Officials could draw and quarter (cutting off people's arms and legs and remove their internal organs), brand them (burn them with hot iron), whip them, cut their body parts off and kill them. Over 250 crimes could be punished with a capital punishment (death sentence).**


 * Like England, the 13 colonies had horrible punishments before we became the United States. The colonies also did the cruel things England used to do to their criminals. The colonies realized that these crimes were still part of the U.S. so when the framers of the Constitution looked at the English Bill of Rights while making the Constitution, they added this amendment with the Bill of Rights. Since then, this amendment has affected many accused people and stopped people from doing horrible and wrong punishments to the criminals.**


 * Current Event by: Katie**
 * The article "Top Court Split on Lethal Injection Drug Sequence" in todays paper January 8, 2008 in the Journal News, says that lethal** **injections have been on hold since September impacting 36 states. The Supreme Court was divided on the issue if a three drug cocktail caused excruciating pain violating the Constitution. The debate is primarily over the use of three drugs in succession. Number one: knock out, Number two: paralyze, and Number three: kill the prisoner. The second drug the paralyzing drug, does not appear to be necessary and the administration of the drug has high human error causing the inmates pain. The case in Kentucky with two death row inmates is not over whether or not to execute. It is a debate over the use of a single drug vs three. To date, a single drug method has not been used in execution.**


 * My opinion the document "Top Court Split on Lethal Injection Drug Sequence" supports the need to explore a single drug for executions. The 8th Amendment is about cruel and unusual punishment and if their is any doubt on whether a three drug cocktail is cruel then an investigation to prove should be considered.**

The current article "Justices Struggle With Lethal Injection", on Google News in January 7, 2008, states that the justices of the Supreme Court are questioning if the Lethal Injection punishment is against the Constitution. Many states use the three drug method in the Lethal Injection Capital Punishment: knock out, paralyze, and kill. Kentucky is one of the states that's best known for this. The main debate about this three step killing is that what if one of the first two drugs doesn't work properly? Then the person gets killed while feeling excruciating pain. The first drug is very important in this punishment, or else the person feels the pain and the punishment then goes against the Constitution. Even more surprising is that the second drug is actually the cause of the pain. The second drug causes paralysis to the person so they cannot show their pain. If the first drug fails, then this drug will cause meaningless pain the person. This almost makes the second drug seem useless and not needed in the process. Some prisoners would even rather use a one drug method rather than the three. But many people still believe that the Lethal Injection is humane and not unusual. The debate hasn't yet been resolved.
 * Current Event by: Andrew

In my opinion, I think that the people who think this method of killing isn't against the Constitution and the 8th Amendment are not in their right mind. How can some people think this method is fair? The people who even give it to the person aren't even 100% sure if the first drug will work. Even if they're 99% sure, the person still has a chance of feeling very severe pain. I also strongly think that the people who made this punishment should take out the second drug. It doesn't make sense to keep the second drug. If it causes more pain than helpfulness, then why put it in the process at all. This method seems obviously unusual and awfully inhumane to me and I think that this punishment will be taken out after the government** **decides on what to do.** [|http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5h_03CF5lNboO6lRuo483ldXUOMCwD8U1991O1**]

The article "The Supreme Court Rules on Lethal Injections" is about a new court decision about lethal injections. On June 12th, the court ruled that inmates may file a last minute appeal or challenge if they are scheduled to be executed by lethal injection. This decision brought a serious social issue that we as a society must deal with. This decision made people wonder if the death penalty is even necessary. If it is, people also wondered if we have a responsibility to ensure that those we kill do not suffer as they die, or do these 'moral laws' not apply to individuals whose crimes were so horrendous that they merited the death penalty. People have also wondered if any death can ever be painless. This is even as nine executions nation wide have been stayed in the past few months awaiting a lethal injection decision. The road is still not clear.**
 * Current Event by: Lauren

http://www.progressiveu.org/190000-the-eighth-amendment-cruel-and-unusual-punishment-the-supreme-court-rules-on-lethal-injection
 * In my opinion, I don't know why they would let inmates appeal when they are supposed to get injected. If the inmates appeal, and they win, I don't see how the death penalty would even be necessary. I feel that whoever kills ,should get killed too and I feel that if you let the criminal appeal, they will and they will go all the way until they win. So, I don't know why the court would actually let a criminal appeal.**